Graham Brady resigns

Shadow Europe Minister Graham Brady has become the first shadow minister to resign over policy in the Cameron era. He issued this brief statement:

"Faced with a choice between a front bench position that I have loved and doing what I believe to be right for my constituents and for the many hundreds of thousands of families who are ill-served by state education in this country, there is in conscience only one option open to me."

Mr Brady was yesterday reprimanded by the Chief Whip and today's newspapers were full of speculation (eg here) that he would be sacked in the summer reshuffle.

Comments

Is it really impossible to devise meaningful vocational education to complement Grammar Schools? I learnt nothing much at all at my "intellectually-challenging" public school (Tonbridge) and reckon building go-karts on the State would have been more fun.

The final straw for him was Willetts quoting findings that he (Brady) said was inaccurate.

This whole episode was an unnecessary row that does not show our party in united way that we need.

I do not believe that we need to embark on a programme of grammar school building but I respect the fact that others have strong views in favour so I simply choose to take the wise course of not mentioning it. Maggie must have had good reasons to choose that course of action as well and she often liked a fight.

So who are the guilty folk that caused this?

1. Willetts for raising this issue in the first place and being discourteous to the education policy team.
2. Our PR people for their inept handling of it.
3. Letwin for his lack of policy cordination, he must have known that Willetts was going to talk about a matter that the policy committee had not completed their work on and that Willetts was by passing them.
4. Cameron for stoking the flames further and turning a two day row into a two week one.

It would appear that we have a politician of principle here, truly a rare find. It also appears that we have a politician who is in touch with what the majority of his party want, and I suspect what the majority of the elctorate want. If only we had a leader who was similarly in touch, imagine what we could do.

My personal congratulations to Mr. Brady for standing up for his beliefs. Oh that we had more like him.

Is it really impossible to devise meaningful vocational education to complement Grammar Schools?

No it is not, but just as the Polytechnics and Technical Colleges were subverted by the liberal arts crowd, so too they would fight every inch of the way to stop Technical Education in any form.

Other countries can do it - but there is a disdain in this country for anything technical and anything involving practical training. They destroyed Sandwich degrees and day-release in order to force everyone into a full-time university straitjacket.....imagine how they will fight to make vocational education pointless.

Read James Dyson's autobiography and his frustrations yet he is probably one of the most successful entrepreneurs in decades.

The fight for Grammar Schools is hard because they don't want to block proper Technical Schools which would create a technocratic class to hallenge the literary class which dominates Media and Government in the form of English degrees and Lawyers

"Although you made it clear when you became leader that you were not planning to introduce more grammar schools, unfortunately David Willetts' argument that grammar schools impede social mobility has gone much further and undermines the schools in my constituency which continue to achieve excellent results for children of all abilities and from all social backgrounds,"

Let's now hear more about the complementary technical schools we certainly need to compete with China.

Oh dear! Looks as though Graham Brady resigned before he was pushed. What is it about political parties in Britain that appear unable to brook any dissent to policies, no matter how ill-conceived the latter appears to Joe Public.

If David Cameron wants to wear all of Tony Blair's clothes then so be it but I suspect he will fail at the next general election to achieve enough seats to form a government.

Education policy over the past 40 years has been a disaster for many children stuck in state sector sink schools; regardless of whether or not increasing Grammar schools is the best way to benefit these children let at least the options be debated in a mature way.

Graham Brady has shown the principle and courage so often lacking in modern day politics. He has put his constituents and their interests first instead of toeing the Party line.

Mr. Brady is the real Conservative and I am sure his loyalty to our true principles will one day be rewarded. Isn't it ludicrous, though, that he is the one resigning when the overwhelming majority of the membership (and evidently the nation) agree whole-heartedly with what he has to say?

I hope that David Willetts might consider his own position and note that we now have a ready-made replacement should we decide to embrace sensible education policies again.

I think we're losing our sense of perspective, here. People shouldn't be resigning or being sacked over this. Willetts' speech didn't change any policy in respect of grammar schools. It merely said out loud what it was already obvious to everyone that Cameron's team were trying to make the public believe they thought. This was *obviously* going to be the kind of thing that Cameron's team would do (a lot, and on a lot of issues - not just grammar schools), right from the start. If Brady wasn't prepared to hold his nose, bite his tongue, and go along with that, then he shouldn't have accepted the front-bench position in the first place. I think he's become a bit over-heated in the past couple of weeks and done something daft, frankly, and I suspect that upone reflection he's going to regret it...

Alex Fisher hits the nail squarely on the head. A vast majority of the party agrees with Brady. A majority of the country agrees with Brady. However, Brady is effectively forced out by the leadership of our party.

Should not the leadership be listening to the party and the country? Is Cameron so arrogant that he cannot consider the possibility that he might, just maybe, be wrong?

DC will probably be PM. Will things be any better with him there than TB or GB? Sadly episodes like this make me question whether they will be. My vote is not guaranteed Mr. Cameron.

To reiterate and develop what's been said on the other thread. The statistics Brady released to the newspapers show that more pupils in these areas (by only seven percent) are more likely to to pass 5 GCSE's. Given the impact of affluence on educational attainment this is absolutely no proof that grammar schools have a munificent impact on their local area. It just shows pupils in a few affluent areas do better on the whole than the national average. If this is the best argument Brady can produce to defend his lifelong principles, may I suggest he is very little loss to the front bench? Willetts' speech used far better critical reasoning to develop a sound case. There is an important debate to be had about selection. Graham Brady did not make a strong contribution to it.

'Truth has a quiet breast', as the Bard put it. Since when has it been a resigning matter in what was once the Conservative Party to put forward factual background information about an issue that is at the foreground of public debate?

The hissy fit response to Graham Brady by Dave and his team is a disgrace. Dave we are told has a short fuse and there are worries about how he will respond under pressure from Brown at PM's question time, as he so dislikes Brown. Bliar and he of course are singing from the same hymn sheet.
Well, he has shown this short fuse (albeit vicariously) over this issue.
Brady was reprimanded not by Dave but by a Whip. He was not sacked immediately as Dave didn't want to make him a martyr and didn't want the story to get fresh impetus. So he planned we are told a reshuffle when Brady's departure would be 'buried' under flashier headlines at the top of the reshuffle. What a catalogue of weakness.

is iot time for a discusion about the future of conservatism, and maybe the creation of a seperate party to work allong side the torys on a EPP-ED a\rangement to enable us to cope with the demise of traditionalism in the shadow cabinet

I think you are wrong Andrew - the ideological attack on selection was a new departure from the previously practical policy of not building more Grammars. that is what so many MPs with principles on this issue and constituencies where hgrammars are very popular ar finding to hard to accept.

it is also deeply unConservative. So bizarre that it was two sentences virtually completely out of context with the rest of the speech. Deliberately provcative?

Could you possibly shoot yourselves in the foot any more ? Considering all you had to do was sit on your hands and look across at the labour party and allow them to have a go at each other as they climbed the greasy pole for the deputy leadership.

ps why isn't DC receiving high level communications advise. It is just one fiasco after another on the PR front. The latest the idiotic line which was programmed into the anonymous robotic spokeswoman.

I'm a Labour supporter but I'm also a resident in Brady's constituency - Altrincham and Sale West. I'm one of the few Labour members who actually supports grammar schools and I'm proud that my MP has taken this stance today. The selective education system has worked extremely well in Trafford and it is so frustrating to hear Westminster hacks like Cameron telling us that they don't provide social mobility - they do. Well done Graham Brady.

I personally don’t agree with what he has done but then I don’t agree with his arguments, I live in a grammar school area and when I was at the local comprehensive school I felt know benefit. We achieved good results because we were streamed from year 7. Anyhow look at the bright side, were back in the news again, where's GB???? so our poll rating may just go up!

Now that Graham Brady has resigned it is obvious from both main political party leaders that obtaining a first class British education does not give you wisdom.
If Cameron keeps on making control freak gaffes then the Scottish Landlord will have a shoe-in at the next election.

Brady had no choice really. As an MP for a seat proud and defensive of its Grammar & High School system (though on the radio he did once say Sec Mod) he had to defend that, as did the MPs in Kent. He should have been sacked though - presumably the Chief Whip in telling him off then left him with the proverbial glass of whisky & gun.

As I've said before I don't believe grammars & sec mods are the way to improve the education system but Willets and Cameron should have considered the Conservative Councils & MPs which continue to operate grammars. I agree with the policy direction Willets is proposing but a bit more thought and thouroughness in the PR and understanding of internal critics wouldn't go amiss.

I think you should return to the facts and reconsider your somewat ill-informed conclusion.

I listened to Estelle Morris today explain why the Conservative Party had come round to Labour's way of thinking, albeit confused. Willetts stated that Grammar Schools impeded social mobility yet pledged to impede social mobility in 164 locations - I understand Folkestone has two - perhaps the MP for Folkestone & Hythe has some thoughts ?

They've both accepted building more grammar school is a no-goer.

Untrue. They have however accepted and incorporated in Conservative Spending Projections a £45 billion commitment to build new Academies as Tony Blair has initiated at £3 billion a year for the next 15 years.

That should keep Polish building workers in pensionable employment.

Only Cameron believes in non-selective schooling because he went to a fee-paying Comprehensive in Berkshire - where if you had the money you gained admission.

Labour now has a headwind on taking on private schooling, and to do all this during Labour's Deputy leadership contest.

Look at you, all! Cheering! I'm all for trying to persuade Cameron's team to change direction in certain ways, but resigning? What's that about? Are you saying that our front bench should revolt, or something - say that they aren't going to support Cameron any more? Who are you wanting to lead us instead?

It is absolutely incorrect to talk about David Cameron not brooking any dissent and forcing Graham Brady out. Brady has resigned of his own accord because he feels that he should have the right to stoke up a row that was dying down on a subject outside his brief.

If anybody is acting in the worst interests in conservatism, it is Graham Brady by his petulant action today.

"Maggie must have had good reasons to choose that course of action as well"

According to wikipedia, which may not be entirely reliable but is probably more reliable than my personal memories from that period:

"The largest expansion of comprehensive schools resulted from a policy decision taken in 1965 by Anthony Crosland, secretary of state for education in the 1964-1970 Labour government, a fervent supporter of Comprehensive education. *
The policy decision was implemented by Circular 10/65, an instruction to local education authorities to plan for conversion. In 1970 the Conservative party re-entered government. Margaret Thatcher became secretary of state for education and ended the compulsion on local authorities to convert. However, many local authorities were so far down the path that it would have been prohibitively expensive to attempt to reverse the process, and more comprehensive schools were established under Mrs Thatcher than any other education secretary."

* He who vowed to "destroy every ****ing grammar school" in the country.

Moreover, believe it or not - MAGGIE WAS NOT INFALLIBLE!

Comprehensive schools were an experiment imposed primarily for ideological,
not educational, reasons; they've proved to be an unsuccessful experiment;
and there's no reason why we should bequeath them to future generations.

"The problem with David Willetts' speech was not the policy it spelt out. Most Tories had grudgingly accepted that. It was the idea contained within it which begged a question which won't go away - if grammar schools are failing, why should Tories oppose their closure...."

"It is Willetts' idea and not Cameron's politics which backers of grammar schools regard as so dangerous. They fear that the Tories have given anti-grammar school campaigners a new script and may give the Labour Party new courage to campaign against them."

Willetts' has created a political own goal for us and provided ammunition to remove the last grammar schools. All it now needs
is for Brown and a like minded Education Secy to act.

"I think we're losing our sense of perspective, here. People shouldn't be resigning or being sacked over this. Willetts' speech didn't change any policy in respect of grammar schools".

Quite so. I feel though that Cameron should recognise that he has stirred up a hornet's nest quite unnecessarily and he should make some gesture to pacify those of us who feel very strongly and sincerely that grammar schools are one of the few things that work really well in the state system.

I would prefer there to be many more of them, so they lose their scarcity value, but that is not going to happen and indeed it should not while there are much more compelling things to put right first. Just put them on a back burner for the time being.

I hope however that the two Davids will have paid close attention to Anthony Seldon's article in the Telegraph on 24 May: "Teaching happiness is no laughing matter".

He sets out what I believe to be the key issue for the tories: "we need a new education debate about the purpose of schooling. For too long, we have been debating the structure of schools rather than their aim".

"Although you made it clear when you became leader that you were not planning to introduce more grammar schools...."--------

That says to me Brady had accepted that no further grammars would be built.

People are attacking the man and not the issue again.

So what that Cameron went to the same school as Prince Andrew or whatever, it does not mean he nor Willetts can get stuck in on this issue. I don't have to live in the Congo to know I don't want to live there.

There are no winners here. The party appears divided (voters do not vote for a divided party) and the leadership looks intolerant of debate.
The presentation failed to anticipate the usual media misrepresentation and allowed more divisiveness than was necessary or helpful.
We must not return to the bad old days when our policies were discredited by inept handling.

This was NOT well done.

We need to do much better before we can expect to be trusted as the next government.

It's not inconceivable that this could ultimately issue in the truly *disasterous* result that Cameron's team starts to be nervous about discussing education policy, in case it stirs up more trouble. As I have urged before, we *must* talk these issues out and come to a policy that we can agree to ask voters to support. But we can't *do* that if people are going to resign when they don't like the first draft! There are years to go before the general election. We can hone our position and get it right. We don't need to panic - either by thinking that the only way to go is to copy Blair or by resigning every time a Cameroon says something dumb.

This whole thing has gone completely ridiculous. We must debate it and debate it and debate it. But we must do that without calling each other "juvenile idiots" or "posh snobs" or "delusional" or whatever. And we must do it without resigning or sacking. We have time to get it right, provided that we don't panic. But what's happened over the past two weeks looks to me (and, I suspect, to voters, also) more like panic than reasoned iterative discussion.

Andrew Woodman, Reuters is reporting that Mark Francois has replaced Graham Brady as Shadow Europe Minister. Francois was a wet in FCS. He was supposed to have dried out but may revert to past form like Paul Goodman.

Good riddance to him, he clearly doesn't understand the word principled (as do others here), mistaking it for huffiness. A foolish drama queen that's all, he would have been sacked anyway, and rightly so.

What utter nonsense. These past few weeks have not been good for our chances of winning in 2009.

David Cameron should be able to expect a greater degree of loyalty from his shadow ministers, but it would help if he could be more conciliatory to those with different ideas (both within and without the Shadow Cabinet).

I think the comments on this stream are very revealing. Not about education policy, but about the motivations of most of the people who come here. Cornerstone Home perhaps, but Conservative Government definitely not.

I agree Graham - it's just farcical these days. The agenda isn't about fair access to a good education for all our kids; it's about pushing for a system that will protect the middle class. At no point in this debate do we address why so many kids are leaving school with no GCSEs.

The people on this blog are not like anyone you meet in real life. They're obsessive hacks pushing for some 1950s view of Britain where everyone knew their place.

Graeme Archer, the road to a Conservative Govt has to be taken through a minefield of political decisions. Choosing to undermine the rationale for grammar schools was a very dumb political decision.

Grammar schools are something that 90% of voters do not live near. As such they are an item of little consequence to those voters. So why did Willetts talk about such a minority matter that would attract few votes?

The appearance of a divided party IS an issue that all voters take note of.

It's great to see that apart from a dwindling handful of diehard Cameroons, there is enormous support for Graham Brady who, incidentally, I have known since his YC days as an absolutely first-rate man.

Brady's resignation is a hammer-blow to the control freaks who have hi-jacked our party. Now we the grassroots have to keep up the pressure.

Some of us warned again and again that this kind of tyranny was the inevitable result of Cameron's PC opportunism. Of course our enemies will exploit the 'Tory split' because the Tories are split. Isn't that what we've been saying all along?

I fear that there will be much worse to come before the party finally appoints a safe pair of hands to the leadership.

I'm sorry, Brady doesn't come across to me as principled. Just an undisciplined egotistical drama queen. He knew the policy and agreed with it but just to cosy up to the throwbacks living in the 50s (or 30s if you listen to Lady Perry) he gives the BBC an oportunity to say there is a Tory split. Too many Tory MPs like this type of publicity the BBC provides.

It is unfotunate that Brady chose to resign over this. Political parties are broad churches (yes, I know they're broader than many members of the headbanger tendency here would like), pick one member of any party and you'll be able to find one policy they weren't keen on.

To resign your post on the front bench because you'd (rightly) been told to stick to your own brief and stay off the Shadow Education team's turf seems a little bit strange. What did he expect to happen? I understand from his letter that he felt strongly about this, but I'm not sure what he think's he's accomplished by resigning.

I'm not sure that this is as principled as some posters here are making out, I can't find it within myself to have much respect for this. He spoke out of turn once while under the collective responsibility of Shadow Cabinet and was reprimanded by the Chief Whip. He then stayed under that same responsibility and did it again! Were there words in that first warning that he didn't understand? Or did he think that a little hissy-fit by "Graham-Who?" would be allowed to change policy and all would be well with his world? Only after a second dressing-down did he resign. And then here we go with another news cycle we have to reign in.

I don't question Brady's basic motives, and I am sure that this could have been handled differently - but if you're looking for culprits on that front, the man himself has to be near the top of the list.

Just a straw which breaks the back a little bit more. Well done ,at least we know there "was" a conservative in HM Opposition.
He speaks for the 15% of conservative voters who are not appearing in the 2% lead ( a liberal quota ) over Labour, and no doubt all soul searching Conservatives who are not Happy with Cameron but who are suffering in bewilderment and distress.
It is now right to start a " RIGHT of centre Party to represent the people and kick these Blairites and Cameroonies out.

"The people on this blog are not like anyone you meet in real life. They're obsessive hacks pushing for some 1950s view of Britain where everyone knew their place."

Indeed, Stephen, it seems that it is the Eton crowd who so love Cameron's policy who wish for the return of a time where 'everyone knew their place'. It is because Grammars give a vehicle for the less well-off to pursue their 'pretentions' to greater things that Cameron wants to remove them.

In wishing to reduce the social mobility of the 'lower classes', Shameron certainly is the 'heir to Bliar'.

TT - Meanwhile in other places rantings on this forum, from people such as you, are laughed about

Whinged about in my experience, Cardinal, but if you find them funny that's no problem.

Most of your Cameroon colleagues take themselves (and their political careers) far too seriously to laugh about Dave's current problems but I have been too long in politics and have far to little involvement with the party these days to become 'bilious' about any Cameroon claptrap.

On the contrary, it is my cynical sarcasm that has in the past upset your friends and got me into trouble with the editor.

Well said GT. I also live in Bucks, and know from personal experience that David Willetts is quite wrong about grammar schools and social mobility. I only have to look at my daughter's grammar school class to see that. There is a greater social spectrum than in any other type of school in the country.

David Brady has spoken up for over half the voters in this country (many, many more than got Labour into power). He is to be congratulated for his bravery - how sad that only the brave dare to debate!! Is this democracy?

"Faced with a choice between a front bench position that I have loved and doing what I believe to be right for my constituents and for the many hundreds of thousands of families who are ill-served by state education in this country, there is in conscience only one option open to me."
That made me laugh, he is deliberately undermining the attempts by the Cameron and Willet's to address the problems faced by many hundreds of thousands of families who are being let down by the present education system just so he can protect 4 grammar schools in his own constituency!!!

"That made me laugh, he is deliberately undermining the attempts by the Cameron and Willet's to address the problems faced by many hundreds of thousands of families who are being let down by the present education system just so he can protect 4 grammar schools in his own constituency!!!"

That made me laugh, he is deliberately undermining the attempts by the Cameron and Willet's to address the problems faced by many hundreds of thousands of families who are being let down by the present education system

Cameron spent his two days in Hull - one of the worst achieving areas in every respect in Britain. What improvements did he suggest to that school from that experience ?

How would he implement streaming in that school ? What if the teachers refuse to cooperate ?

These questions can be answered by Cameron now....no need for policy groups....he can tell us how he would improva that school

As I found from my two days teaching at a secondary school in Hull last week, teachers are in despair at their inability to impose discipline. We will make sure that in every school, the headteacher is the absolute captain of the ship. He or she will be able to maintain discipline and exclude poorly behaving pupils without being second-guessed or penalised for doing it.

So how will this discipline be imposed when the courts are so ready to challenge anybody's right to uphold any form of order ?

" No more grammars are going to be built, and none have been built for 30-odd years. Time for the party to move on."

Robson | May 29, 2007 at 18:25

Not true. Queen Elizabeth School for Boys, Barnet. It was a comprehensive school when it took grant-maintained status in 1989. In 1994 it petitioned the (Conservative) secretary of state for education for permission to become a grammar school. That permission was granted.